Aaron Rodgers on Fauci

New piece by Lloyd Billingsley

I came across the following article, that discusses Aaron Rodgers’ criticism of Dr. Fauci, and also displays a very positive attitude toward HIV AIDS criticism. I’m covering this briefly today, as it represents a ray of hope amid the mostly bleak news around “HIV.” It appeared May 9, 2024, in Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and was written by Lloyd Billingsley:

Packers QB Aaron Rodgers vs. the White Coat Supremacy of Dr. Anthony Fauci

New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently went on record criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci who, the football star said, “was given over $350 million to research this, to come up with drugs, new or repurposed to handle the AIDS pandemic. And all they came up with was AZT [azidothymidine].” Rodgers is on to something, and there’s more to the story.

The piece discusses Fauci’s aggressive promotion of both AZT as a first line treatment for AIDS and the fast-tracked COVID vaccines, far before the disastrous safety profiles of either product was established.

Fauci’s favored cure for AIDS was indeed AZT, also known as azidothymidine and Zidovudine, a DNA-chain terminator found to be useless against cancer. The highly toxic drug failed to prevent or cure AIDS but Fauci inflicted AZT and other dangerous drugs on foster children in New York City. That sort of abuse was justified by NIH nurse Christine Grady in her 1995 bookThe Search for an AIDS Vaccine, which touts “the availability and effectiveness of AZT” as a boon to research. Grady’s book justifies drug trials on children and pregnant women, and there’s another problem. The author, who earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown, failed to reveal that at the time of the book’s publication she had been married to Fauci for 10 years.

You may recall that the experiments on children in NYC actually took place at an orphanage, and involved incredible medical abuse that was documented in the film Guinea Pig Kids that aired on the BBC.

It is also certainly interesting that Fauci’s wife wrote an entire book in which this abuse was documented, yet somehow justified as a “boon to research.”

Fauci contended that AIDS was caused by HIV, a claim disputed by Mullis, Peter Duesberg, Charles A. Thomas, and colleagues in “The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.” These leading medical scientists had never seen a retrovirus with such destructive capabilities.

[…]

Instead of debating Mullis, Duesberg, Thomas et al, Fauci branded them “AIDS denialists,” worked to cancel their media appearances, and whenever possible cut their funding. The HIV hypothesis became an orthodoxy, and the ticket to government support. More recently, that hypothesis has been challenged by biologist Rebecca V. Culshaw in The Real AIDS Epidemic (2023). As Culshaw contends, the rush to approve mRNA vaccines in 2020 was “essentially a massive clinical trial conducted in real time on the entire population.” The back story here has also escaped notice.

We have discussed here before the strange fact that the AIDS section in Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, has been completely ignored by the media until very recently. We’ve also discussed the censorship of everything from books to advertisements that has been a critical part of the game for proponents of the HIV AIDS story since the beginning.

To this day, those who challenge Fauci are labeled with the epithet “conspiracy theorists.” On the other hand, critics of Fauci have ways to respond to such accusers. They can start by asking if the NIAID boss, who said “I represent science” ever said or did anything wrong. Fauci now admits the six-foot distancing rule was not based on science but “sort of just appeared.” And was it based on science to wear no mask, one mask, or two masks, as Fauci claimed? The NIAID boss also funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Be sure and get the accusers’ take on that, but don’t leave it there.

Determine whether the accuser has earned advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, and if he or she has written anything on HIV and AIDS under his or her own name. Find out if the accuser has received any funding from NIAID or the NIH. Ask if the accuser is familiar with cases of AIDS without HIV.

Billingsley highlights the character assassination that Peter Duesberg endured as an example of how critics are treated when they dare to question the anointed theory. I agree that it’s difficult to come up with a better one.

As Jeanne Lenzer noted in Discover Magazine, Duesberg arrived at UC Berkeley in 1964 as a postdoctoral fellow, “hoping to unlock the secrets of cancer” and joining the hunt for retroviruses. In 1986, at age 49, Duesberg was elected to the National Academy of Sciences and given a National Institutes of Health Outstanding Investigator Award, one of the most prestigious and coveted grants.

In March 1987, Duesberg published a paper in Cancer Research questioning the role of HIV as the cause of AIDS. As Lenzer noted, the man colleagues might once have regarded as the “Einstein of biology” was then smeared as an AIDS “denier,” but there was more to it than name-calling.

For the previous 23 years, Duesberg never had an application for public funding turned down. That funding began to disappear under NIAID boss Fauci, who controlled both AIDS policy and spending on medical research. By 2008, Duesberg’s once thriving laboratory was down to a single graduate student. Had Duesberg received the funding his research deserved, a cure for cancer might be closer at hand. During the COVID pandemic the professor held back, but Inventing the AIDS Virus had already exposed the forces in play:

The modern biomedical research establishment differs radically from any previous scientific program in history. Driven by vast infusions of federal and commercial money, it has grown into an enormous and powerful bureaucracy that greatly amplifies its successes and mistakes all the while stifling dissent. Such a process can no longer be called science, which by definition depends on self-correction by internal challenge and debate.

The bolded quote, from Inventing the AIDS Virus, really sums up the state of modern “science.” How common is it to hear the term “scientific consensus” to describe the state of research around everything from climate change to vaccines? I’m not sure how they can state these things with a straight face—“scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.

AZT became a “superstar product” for Burroughs Wellcome, which charged $10,000 per AIDS patient per year. Burroughs Wellcome’s profits from AZT were estimated at $427 million, possibly as high as $592 million. In similar style, the swiftly approved COVID vaccines failed to prevent infection or transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but they were superstar products for their makers.

This doesn’t even begin to touch the profits made by Gilead Pharmaceuticals from Truvada, which comes at a price tag of $2k per month. It’s tempting to blame financial interests for all of this, considering the amount of money the pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies control and profit from. No, it is deeper than that. The concept of “retention in care” of mostly gay men on a strict medication regime really ramped up in the early days of AIDS and has metastasized since then to include the treatment of gender dysphoria in (likely mostly gay) children with lifetime medication regimes and irreversible surgeries.

It is hard not to see these phenomena as being somehow linked in their insidious targeting and eradication—via drug toxicity or the modern conversion therapy that is “gender affirming care”—of the gay community. However, as we know, it has not been enough to Stockholm Syndrome generations of gay men; the targeting also includes African Americans. It’s time to call the HIV AIDS story and the massive industry it has spawned exactly what it is: a racist, homophobic construct “legitimized” by shoddy research and held up using the illusion that these toxic medications, from AZT to Truvada, are life-saving rather than what they are, which is life-ending.

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.